I don't think it's reasonable to discount some of those. Since when is an alternate strategy working considered an illegitimate podium? A little lucky, okay, but then Max was lucky in Malaysia for Vettel to have started at the back, and he was lucky in Mexico for Lewis and Seb to have hit each other, etc. It's rare for any podium or win to be completely free of luck.

I would say the podium in Baku was also legitimate, since quite a few of the people in front of him took themselves out by driver error - Max and Lewis were faultless in their failures to finish, but that would still have put Ricciardo on the podium even if they had both beaten him. It was a lucky win, but I think the podium was earned by staying clean and making a decisive pass.

In Austria I also feel his podium was legitimate. Lewis started behind, but we've seen in the past that Lewis can make it to the podium from the back, let alone the midfield. Ricciardo kept ahead of him because he was quick. Malaysia, if he was lucky so was Max, and Japan too to some extent (although Max would probably have been third and still on the podium).

I just listed all his podiums, Monaco he did well but just ended up on the best strategy. If your team splits strategy all through the year, sometimes it will favour you sometimes it won't. But he was running 5th before then.

Max may have had some fortune to win in Malaysia, but even if both Ferrari's beat him he would still be 3rd. Kimi wouldn't have beat him either. The same for Mexico, Max had already taken the lead and probably the win before Vettel/Hamilton collision. Worse case he was still on the podium that day too but I feel he won the race with his turn 1/2 pass.

Hamilton qualified 3rd in Austria ahead of Ricciardo. Dan may have had a good pace but without that penalty, Hamilton likely beats him.

I prefer Ricciardo as a driver but the facts are the facts, nearly all of his podiums were circumstantial as were all of his wins in his career (not that he had the car to actually win races though).

I just listed all his podiums, Monaco he did well but just ended up on the best strategy. If your team splits strategy all through the year, sometimes it will favour you sometimes it won't. But he was running 5th before then.

Max may have had some fortune to win in Malaysia, but even if both Ferrari's beat him he would still be 3rd. Kimi wouldn't have beat him either. The same for Mexico, Max had already taken the lead and probably the win before Vettel/Hamilton collision. Worse case he was still on the podium that day too but I feel he won the race with his turn 1/2 pass.

Hamilton qualified 3rd in Austria ahead of Ricciardo. Dan may have had a good pace but without that penalty, Hamilton likely beats him.

I prefer Ricciardo as a driver but the facts are the facts, nearly all of his podiums were circumstantial as were all of his wins in his career (not that he had the car to actually win races though).

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said, but don’t forget that Dan totally owned Monaco in 2016 and would’ve won that race completely on merit had it not been for a bad strategy call and a bad pit stop.

I've been over this many times before, but you're doing Ricciardo a great disservice by writing off his good results as being the result of dumb luck.

As yourself why it's always Ricciardo who picks up the pieces?

How many other drivers have won a race by overtaking Lewis Hamilton and Fernando Alonso in the last 5 laps?

But sure, it's all down to luck.

Who said it was all down to luck, I said there was little difference between Max's 5th place (or any of Ricciardo's 4th/5th for that matter) in AD when multiple cars didn't drop out ahead and Ricciardo's podiums in which multiple people dropped out ahead.

If you are good enough for 5th/6th and finish 5th/6th that is no different to me than being good enough for 5th/6th and coming 3rd because others retired ahead of you or got penalties. Its pot luck, just like his wins in 2014. The three races Mercedes dropped the ball, he happened to be the next best that day and won all three races when in reality through the season he was only next best 5-6 races out of 20. His drives those days were no better than others had driven to finish 3rd through the year it just happened to be on days when both Mercedes failed.

People used this when Nico got all his 2nd places in 2014, "he is always there to pick up the pieces if Hamilton has mechanical issues etc etc". He was in a 2 horse race that year! Finishing 2nd was basically last place. Going into the run in, he had 10 2nd places and 4 wins and many were calling it consistency and "always being there" were he just had better reliability.

I just listed all his podiums, Monaco he did well but just ended up on the best strategy. If your team splits strategy all through the year, sometimes it will favour you sometimes it won't. But he was running 5th before then.

Max may have had some fortune to win in Malaysia, but even if both Ferrari's beat him he would still be 3rd. Kimi wouldn't have beat him either. The same for Mexico, Max had already taken the lead and probably the win before Vettel/Hamilton collision. Worse case he was still on the podium that day too but I feel he won the race with his turn 1/2 pass.

Hamilton qualified 3rd in Austria ahead of Ricciardo. Dan may have had a good pace but without that penalty, Hamilton likely beats him.

I prefer Ricciardo as a driver but the facts are the facts, nearly all of his podiums were circumstantial as were all of his wins in his career (not that he had the car to actually win races though).

Dan didn't have RB's dodgy suspension and Renault's upgraded engine for his early podiums, it was a far worse car at that point of the season so podiums through anything but a bit of luck were far more unlikely. Red Bull were forced not to run the suspension after Mexico and look at the difference.

Why wouldn't Kimi beat Max in Malaysia? And if both Ferrari's are there and healthy and in front then maybe Lewis approaches his race a bit differently and doesn't roll out the red carpet for Max in this scenario.

Dan still had 3 cars ahead of him in Austria after Lewis's penalty was applied.

I think Dan has been outperformed for the first time in his career across the season by Max this year but it was still quite close. Max had the edge in quali and especially at the starts which set up most of the difference between the pair this year but race pace was close, most of the quali's were close and he showed greater consistency and composure at important times which helped him gobble up a lot of points.

Baku is a good example which for most is entirely down to luck but he had an early set back through no fault of his own and had to pit to clear a blockage and it was his decisive moves and error free but aggressive passing which put him back in the position to get that fortunate win. Italy is another where he nearly got a podium despite starting at the back thanks to being quick,error free and decisive.

Just seems much too harsh to boil it down to Max's magic got him his and Dan's luck got him his.

(And he'd absolutely have a legit win on his ledger if his pit crew hadn't robbed him in Monaco last year).

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

I've been over this many times before, but you're doing Ricciardo a great disservice by writing off his good results as being the result of dumb luck.

As yourself why it's always Ricciardo who picks up the pieces?

How many other drivers have won a race by overtaking Lewis Hamilton and Fernando Alonso in the last 5 laps?

But sure, it's all down to luck.

It's not though is it? He's retired many times this year. When he does finish well i t is generally because things have gone wrong for others. The further back you are the more drivers are going to retire in front of you. Ricciardo is a very, very good driver who s very, very good at taking his chances. But you can't hold double standards.